Can someone please help me understand when the concerns by the CDF of the LCWR became publicly known?
I read in the “Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious” report issued April 2012 that the CDF has been interacting with the LCWR for a quite a number of years. Has the CDF been doing this behind the scenes? Or, has this been one public statement after another public statement?
My understanding is that the LCWR has not been quiet about the dislike it has for leadership of the Church. If that is false, please correct my understanding!!! Please!
Any info on the public nature of this conflict will be helpful for me. Thanks!
It’s a little more complex than posters on CAF make it out to be. There are several things that most people don’t know, because it does not directly affect the average Catholic. Let’s go through some of them.
First:
Conferences of religious superiors (male and female) are very much like conferences of bishops. In other words, they exist at the pleasure of the Holy See. They are not isolated. They have ongoing communication with the Holy See. They deal with each department at the Holy See, depending on the issue on the table. In the case of doctrine, they deal with the CDF. In this regard, it’s not that there have been secret communications between the CDF and the LCWR, but that it’s a normal part of any conference, be it women religious, men religious or bishops to be in contact with the Holy See. We must understand that the Holy See is bigger than the pope. He is the head of the Holy See, but he is not the Holy See. The Holy See is the entire corporation of Sacred Congregations, commissions, and departments. The LCWR, like every other conference has been in contact with the CDF since its inception, not just on problems, but also on other issues that are appropriate for the CDF to deal with.
Second:
It is the duty of the CDF to protect the faith. This means that if any group, not just a conference, poses a threat to the faith or deviates from the faith, the role of the CDF is to guide it back down the correct path. Whether the group likes what the CDF has to say or not is irrelevant. The CDF has the right to say it. But there is a caveat that most laymen and women do not know. This leads to the third point.
Third:
The caveat is that the conference, in this case the LCWR, has the legal right to respond. If it disagrees with the observations and direction of the CDF, it has the right to say so. Contrary to what many lay people and secular priests are saying, religious are not subject to the Holy See. They are subject to the pope himself and to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The CDF does not have juridical authority over the religious in the Catholic Church except that which is assigned to it either by the Holy Father or by the Congregation for Religious. The CDF cannot unilaterally command religious. This leaves the door open for religious to respond and to ask questions. The CDF may not like what the religious have to say, but they have a right to say it. What follows after is dialogue and the search for common ground. This is not always easy to find. At times, a Vatican congregation may see something one way and a conference sees it another. It is very important that both are looking at the issue through the same window. There has to be trust for this to happen. This leads to the next point.
Fourth:
The law of the Church is that bishops may not involve themselves in the affairs of religious of Pontifical Right. They can only involve themselves in the affairs of diocesan communities. This particular situation is being looked at with suspicion, not only by the sisters, but also by the Conference of Male Religious, because while everything that is in the document is true, there is a question as to why the Conference of Bishops did not invite the LCWR to the table. There is a law that says that the bishops or the religious can convoke a congress of religious and bishops to discuss and settle differences. If they are not resolved, then either side can go to Rome with the case. There is a question as to why this first step never took place. No one has answered this question.
Fifth:
There is an element in the LCWR that is very hostile toward any form of male authority. That certainly does not help the case of the many good sisters whose superiors belong to the LCWR, because everyone gets looked at as one body. One has to understand that the CDF is not looking at individual sisters or even individual religious communities. It’s looking at the LCWR. There is a danger here that those communities that are members of the LCWR and are not part of this dissenting group can be found to be guilty by association, which we all agree is not fair.
Sixth:
This element of dissenting voices is rather small, but very vocal. This is usually the case when you have dissent. Look at the SSPX. It’s actually tiny compared to the mighty Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans and Salesians, but it’s louder than all of them put together and can easily drown them out. The same happens with the dissenting voices in the LCWR. Dissent is always loud, be it to the right or the left.
Seventh:
The greatest problem that most people see in the LCWR is not so much “sins” of commission as sins of omission. The LCWR has been very silent on such important issues as: same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and a number of other issues that are very important to the American bishops. Not only because they are religious, but simply because they are Catholic, if the bishops call for a voice in the market place to confront these problems, they should not be silent and they are. The few who are doing the talking are the dissenters, which are the very people whom one wishes would be silent. One can’t make dissenters go away. We know that from experience. We’ve had dissenters in the Church since day one. One dissenter is replaced by another. The difference here is that the dissenters in the LCWR are going unchallenged by the rest of the membership. This raises serious concerns. Do the other members truly understand the seriousness of the dissent? Do the other members truly understand the Church’s position? Do they understand how important it is for all of us to stand together? Do they understand the damage that is done when any Catholic stands by an opposing force rather than by the bishops?
One often gets the impression that either the dissenters control the LCWR or that the rest of the members are either indifferent or do not understand the need to stand by the bishops.
Eighth:
Whether we Catholics agree with the bishops or not, whether we like them or not, and whether they are orthodox or heterodox, several facts remain true and will always be true.
Only the bishops can speak authoritatively for the local Church in any diocese or any country. None of us has the right to express opinions contrary to those of the bishops as if they were Catholic opinions. We can express them as personal opinions, but it’s important to inform our audience that they are personal, not Catholic opinions. There are many people, not just sisters, speaking about many things, saying that it’s Catholic, but they have not been given any license to speak for the Catholic Church, among them are laymen as well as sisters and clergy. No one can say anything contrary to what the bishop says and say that it’s the Catholic way. I can say that it’s my way. In that case, let the hearer beware. This is not what is happening. There are people, including sisters, who have written and said things that are unacceptable and have called it Catholic.
While the bishops may never interfere in the affairs of religious, no one may ever teach the faith without the permission of the bishops. Each of us has his or her place. Those who are authorized to teach the faith, must teach it as the bishops teach it. Those of us who are authorized to speak on social issues, must say what the bishops say. Why? Because the bishops do the authorizing. To go out there and say what the Church does not teach without the permission of the bishop is highly problematic. If they say that the Church has to make exceptions on abortion or contraception, that has to do with the bishops. Those are matters of faith, not internal affairs. The pope can deal with the red hair and ruby pumps that the sisters choose to wear, if he so desires, which he does not. But the bishops must make sure that Catholics say what the Church says.
